Sustainable Development - Transforming America under U.N. AGENDA 21

eco'logic Special Report

Sustainable Development: Transforming
America

by Henry Lamb

Environmental Conservation Organization Hollow Rock, Tennessee

December 1,2005

As the "sustainable development" movement continues to gain momentum, it is
worthwhile to step back and take a long look at the big picture, painted with a broad
brush to reveal what the United States might look like as the movement's vision is
more fully implemented over the next 50 years or so. The picture painted here is based
on official documents published by several government agencies and non-government
organizations during the last decade. These documents were rarely reported in the
news, and average working people have no idea what sustainable development really
means, and even less knowledge of what is in store for the future. If the vision of
sustainable development continues to unfold as it has in the last decade, life in the
United States will be quite different in the future.

The Vision Half the land area of the entire country will be designated "wilderness
areas," where only wildlife managers and researchers will be allowed. These areas
will be interconnected by "corridors of wilderness" to allow migration of wildlife,
without interference by human activity. Wolves will be as plentiful in Virginia and
Pennsylvania as they are now in Idaho and Montana. Panthers and alligators will roam
freely from the Everglades to the Okefenokee and beyond. Surrounding these
wilderness areas and corridors, designated "buffer zones" will be managed for
"conservation objectives." The primary objective is "restoration and rehabilitation."
Rehabilitation involves the repair of damaged ecosystems, while restoration usually
involves the reconstruction of natural or semi-natural ecosystems. As areas are
restored and rehabilitated, they are added to the wilderness designation, and the buffer
zone is extended outward. Buffer zones are surrounded by what is called "zones of
cooperation." This is where people live - in "sustainable communities." Sustainable
communities are defined by strict "urban growth boundaries." Land outside the
growth boundaries will be managed by government agencies, which grant permits for
activities deemed to be essential and sustainable. Open space, to provide a "viewshed"
and sustainable recreation for community residents will abut the urban boundaries.
Beyond the viewshed, sustainable agricultural activities will be permitted, to support

the food requirements of nearby communities. Sustainable communities of the future
will bear little resemblance to the towns and cities of the 20th century. Single-family
homes will be rare. Housing will be provided by public/private partnerships, funded
by government, and managed by non-government "Home Owners Associations."
Housing units will be designed to provide most of the infrastructure and amenities
required by the residents. Shops and office space will be an integral part of each unit,
and housing will be allocated on a priority basis to people who work in the unit - with
quotas to achieve ethnic and economic balance. Schools, daycare, and recreation
facilities will be provided. Each unit will be designed for bicycle and foot traffic, to
reduce, if not eliminate, the need for people to use automobiles. Transportation
between sustainable communities, for people and for commodities, will be primarily
by light rail systems, designed to bridge wilderness corridors where necessary. The
highways that remain will be super transport corridors, such as the "Trans-Texas
Corridor" now being designed, which will eventually reach from Mexico to Canada.
These transport corridors will also be designed to bridge wilderness corridors, and to
minimize the impact on the environment. Government, too, will be different in a
sustainable America. Human activity is being reorganized around ecoregions, which
do not respect county or state boundaries. Therefore, the governing apparatus will be
designed to regulate the activities within the entire region, rather than having multiple
governing jurisdictions with services duplicated in each political subdivision. It is far
more efficient to have regional governing authorities with centrally administered
services.

Sierra Club's proposal to reorganize North America into 21 Ecoregions. The

Sierra Club, one of hundreds of non-government organizations actively working to
bring about this transformation, has suggested that North America be divided into 21
ecoregions, that ignore existing national, state, and county boundaries. In 1992, they
published a special issue of their magazine which featured a map, and extensive
descriptions of how these ecoregions should be managed. (1) The function of
government will also change. The legislative function, especially at the local and state
level, will continue to diminish in importance, while the administrative function will
grow. Already, in some parts of the country, counties are combining, and city and
county governments are consolidating. Regional governing authorities are developing;
taking precedence over the participating counties, which will eventually evaporate.
State governments will undergo similar attrition; as regulations are developed on an
ecoregions basis, there will be less need for separate state legislation. The
administrative functions of state governments will also collapse into a super-regional
administrative unit, to eliminate unnecessary duplication of investment and services.

The Reality This vision is quite attractive to many Americans, especially those born
since 1970, who have been educated in the public school system. To these people,

nothing is more important than saving the planet from the certain catastrophe that lies
ahead, if people are allowed to continue their greedy abuse of natural resources. The
public school system, and the media, have been quite successful is shaping new
attitudes and values to support this vision of how the world should be. This vision did
not suddenly spring from the mind of a Hollywood screenwriter. It has been evolving
for most of the last century. Since the early 1960s, it has been gaining momentum.
The rise of the environmental movement became the magnet which attracted several
disparate elements of social change, now coalesced into a massive global movement,
euphemistically described as sustainable development. The first Wilderness Act was
adopted in 1964, which set aside nine million acres of wilderness so "our posterity
could see what our forefathers had to conquer," as one Senator put it. Now, after 40
years, 106.5 million acres are officially designated as wilderness. (2) At least eight
bills have been introduced in the 109th Congress to add more wilderness to the
system._(3) And every year, Congress is asked to designate more and more land as
wilderness. Most of this land is already a part of a global system of ecoregions,
recognized internationally as "Biosphere Reserves." In the United States, there are 47
Biosphere Reserves, so designated by the United Nations Education, Science, and
Cultural Organization, (4) which are a part of a global network of 482 Biosphere
Reserves. This global network is the basis for implementing the U.N.'s Convention on
Biological Diversity ,_[5) a treaty which the U.S. Senate chose not to ratify ._[6_1 The
1 140-page instruction book for implementing this treaty, Global Biodiversity
Assessment, provides graphic details about how society should be organized, and how
land and resources should be managed, in order to make the world sustainable. This
treaty was formulated by U.N. agencies and non-government organizations between
1981 and 1992, when it was formally adopted by the U.N. Conference on
Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. Consider this instruction from the
Global Biodiversity Assessment:

"...representative areas of all major ecosystems in a region need to be reserved,
that blocks should be as large as possible, that buffer zones should be
established around core areas, and that corridors should connect these areas.
This basic design is central to the recently proposed Wildlands Project in the
United States." (7)

Now consider "this basic design" as described in the Wildlands Project:

"...that at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be
encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions
of core reserves) within the next few decades.... Nonetheless, half of a region in
wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable
populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that

most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zones.
Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region... with human
habitations being the islands. The native ecosystem and the collective needs of
non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of
humans. " (8)

Even though this treaty was not ratified by the United States, it is being effectively
implemented by the agencies of government through the "Ecosystem Management
Policy." The U.S. Forest service is actively working to identify and secure wilderness
corridors to connect existing core wilderness areas. (9) Both state and federal
governments have enacted legislation in recent years to provide for systematic
acquisition of "open space," land suitable for restoration and rehabilitation, to expand
wilderness areas, and to provide "viewsheds" beyond urban boundaries. In the last
days of the Clinton Administration, the Forest Service adopted the "Roadless Area
Conservation Rule," which identified 58.5 million acres from which access and
logging roads were to be removed. In the West, the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management are driving ranchers off the land by reducing grazing allotments to
numbers that make profitable operations impossible. Inholders, people who have
recreational cabins on federal land, are discovering that their permits are not being
renewed. The Fish and Wildlife Service is forcing people off their land through
designations of "wetlands," and "critical habitat" which render the land unusable for
profit-making activities. Much to the chagrin of the proponents of sustainable
development, some of these policies have been slowed, but not reversed, by the Bush
administration. Nevertheless, agencies of government, supported by an army of non-
government organizations, continue to transform the landscape into the vision
described in the Wildlands Project, and in the Global Biodiversity Assessment.

Blueprint for Sustainable Development Other agencies of government are working
with equal diligence, to create the "islands of human habitation," otherwise called
sustainable communities. The blueprint for these communities was also adopted at the
1992 U.N. Conference in Rio de Janeiro. Its title is "Agenda 21." This 300-page
document contains 40 chapters loaded with recommendations to govern virtually
every facet of human existence. Agenda 21 is not a treaty. It is a "soft law" policy
document which was signed by President George H.W. Bush, and which does not
require Senate ratification. One of the recommendations contained in the document is
that each nation establish a national council to implement the rest of the
recommendations. On June 29, 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order
Number 12852 which created the President's Council on Sustainable Development.
(10) Its 25 members included most Cabinet Secretaries, representatives from The
Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club and other non-government organizations, and a
few representatives from industry. The PCSD set out to implement the

recommendations of Agenda 21 administratively, where possible, and to secure new
legislation when necessary. One of the publications of the Council is "Sustainable
Communities, Report of the Sustainable Communities Task Force." (11) This
document, in very generalized language, makes sustainable communities sound like
the perfect solution to all the world's ills. Another document, however, describes in
much more precise detail exactly what sustainable communities will be. This
document was prepared by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a
report to the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul, June, 1996. This
report says that current lifestyles in the United States will "...demolish much of
nature's diversity and stability, unless a re-balance can be attained - an urban-rural
industrial re-balance with ecology, as a fundamental paradigm of authentic,
meaningful national/global human security." (12) This highly detailed 25-page report
goes on to describe the sustainable community of the future:

"...Community Sustainability Infrastructures [designed for] efficiency and
livability that encourages: in-fill over sprawl: compactness, higher density low-
rise residential: transit-oriented (TODs) and pedestrian-oriented development
(PODs): bicycle circulation networks; work-to-home proximity; mixed-use-
development: co-housing, housing over shops, downtown residential; inter-
modal transportation malls and facilities ...where trolleys, rapid transit, trains
and biking, walking and hiking are encouraged by infrastructures."

"For this hopeful future we may envision an entirely fresh set of infrastructures
that use fully automated, very light, elevated rail systems for daytime metro
region travel and nighttime goods movement, such as have been conceptualized
and being positioned for production at the University of Minnesota in
Minneapolis; we will see all settlements linked up by extensive bike, recreation
and agro-forestry "E-ways" (environment-ways) such as in Madison,
Wisconsin; we will find healthy, productive soils where there is [now] decline
and erosion, through the widespread use of remineralization from igneous and
volcanic rock sources (much of it the surplus quarry fines, or "rockdust", from
concrete and asphalt-type road construction or from reservoir silts); we will be
growing foods, dietary supplements and herbs that make over our unsustainable
reliance upon foods and medicines that have adverse soil, environmental, or
health side-effects. Less and less land will go for animal husbandry, and more
for grains, tubers and legumes." (13)

Sustainable communities cannot emerge as the natural outgrowth of free people
making individual choices in a free market economy. Nor can they be mandated in the
United States, as they might be in nations that live under dictatorial rule. Therefore,
the PCSD developed a strategy to entice or coerce local communities to begin the

transition to sustainability. The EPA provided challenge grants, and visioning grants
to communities that would undertake the process toward sustainability. Grants were
also made available to selected non-government organizations to launch a visioning
process in local communities. This process relies on a trained facilitator who uses a
practiced, "consensus building" model to lead selected community participants in the
development of "community vision." This vision inevitably sets forth a set of goals -
each of which can be found in the recommendations of Agenda 21 - that become the
basis for the development of a comprehensive community plan. (14) According to the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), 6,400 local
communities in 113 countries have become involved in the sustainable communities
Local Agenda 21 process since 1995. (15) ICLEI is one of several international non-
government organizations whose mission is to promote sustainable development and
sustainable communities at the local level. Dozens of similar national NGOs are at
work all across the United States. A cursory search on the term "sustainable
communities" through Google or Yahoo will return a staggering number of responses.
The federal government deepened its involvement in the transformation of America
by providing millions of dollars in grants to the American Planning Association to
develop model legislation which embodies the principles of sustainable development.
The publication, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning
and the Management of Change, provides model legislation to be adopted by states.
Typically, this legislation, when adopted, requires the creation of a statewide
comprehensive land use plan that defines the administrative mechanisms for regional
government agencies, and provides planning models for counties to use in creating
county- wide land use plans. Municipalities within the county are required to produce
a plan that conforms with, and is integrated into the county and state plans. (16) Using
the coercive power of the federal budget, which the PCSD describes as using
"financial incentives and disincentives," the federal government had little trouble
getting states to rush to adopt some form of the model legislation. The state of
Wisconsin, for examples, says this about its comprehensive planning act:

"The Comprehensive Planning Law was developed in response to the widely
held view that state planning laws were outdated and inconsistent with the
current needs of Wisconsin communities. Commonly recognized as
Wisconsin's "Smart Growth" legislation, significant changes to planning-related
statutes were approved through the 1999-2001 state biennial budget. Under the
new law, any program or action of a town, village, city, county, or regional
planning commission, after January 1, 2010, that affects land use must be
guided by, and consistent with, an adopted Comprehensive Plan, s. 66. 1001,
Wis. Stats."_Q7)

The APA's Legislative Guidebook offers several forms of the model legislation. States
have considerable latitude in the legislation that is adopted. Consequently, each state's
legislation may be different, and may impose different requirements on county and
city governments. Regardless of the difference, however, they all contain the basic
principles set forth in Agenda 21, and they all require the development of plans that
result in the implementation of the recommendations contained in Agenda 21. One of
the fundamental elements of all the plans requires limiting development (growth) to
certain areas within the county. Planners draw lines on maps, supposedly to prevent
development in "environmentally sensitive" areas, but which, in fact, are often quite
arbitrary and sometimes influenced by political considerations. The value of land
inside the development areas skyrockets, while the value of land outside the
development areas plummets - with no hope of future appreciation. Another common
element of these plans is to limit the activity that may occur within the various plan
designations. In King County, Washington, for example, property owners in some
parts of the county are required to leave 65% of their land unused, in its "natural"
condition.

"Known as the 65-10 Rule, it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of
their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule,
nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must
be replanted. Building anything is out of the question." (18)

These plans also focus on reducing automobile use. Measures sometimes include
making driving less convenient by constructing speed bumps and obstructive center
diversions on residential streets, prohibiting single occupant use of certain traffic
lanes, as well as a variety of extra "tax" measures for auto use. Oregon is
experimenting with a mileage tax, based on miles driven. London has imposed a
special tax on automobiles that enter a designated "high traffic area." Several U.S.
cities are studying this idea. Santa Cruz, California's plan seeks to ban auto use in
certain municipal areas. Hundreds of NGOs have popped up to form a "World Carfree
Network" (19) which lobbies local officials to reduce or eliminate auto use.
Alternative transportation is another common element of these plans. Light rail is a
favorite, even in communities that have no hope of achieving economic viability.
Proponents of sustainable development argue that even if a light rail system has to be
subsidized forever, it is a bargain just to get automobiles off the streets. Bicycle paths
and "Trails" are always a substantial part of sustainable community plans. Housing in
sustainable communities presents special problems. Space limitations, imposed by
growth boundaries, force higher densities and smaller housing units. The term
"McMansions" has been coined to describe new homes that are larger than necessary,
as determined by sustainable development enthusiasts. Multiple housing units are
preferred over single-family structures. Since sustainable communities cannot grow

horizontally, they must grow vertically - if they grow at all. These problems have
produced a variety of responses. Some of the new terms that are becoming common in
sustainable communities are: Limited Equity Co-ops; Resident-controlled Rentals;
Co-housing; Mutual Housing; and many others. (20) Invariably, these schemes are
alternatives to the conventional single-family home. Most often, these schemes vest
ownership in a corporation that owns the housing units, and residents may, but not
always, own shares of the corporation. Living conditions are determined, not by the
individual resident, but by the corporation. Financing for the construction of these
units, typically requires construction to meet "sustainable" standards, if federal money
is used, either directly or indirectly, as in a mortgage guarantee. Single family homes
and business structures that already exist when a community is transformed to
sustainability are a special problem, since they rarely meet the criteria required by the
comprehensive plan. APA's Legislative Guidebook offers a new solution for this
problem: "Amortization of Non-Conforming Uses." This means that a city or county
may designate a period of time in which existing structures must be brought into
conformity with the new regulations.

"But for homeowners who live in a community that adopts the Guidebook's
vision, the APA amortization proposal means the extinguishing, over time, of
their right to occupy their houses, and without just compensation for loss of that
property. How long they have before they must forfeit their homes would be
completely up to the local government." (21)

Eminent domain is another tool used by government to bring their communities into
compliance with the sustainable communities vision. With increasing frequency,
governments have used this technique to take land, not for "public use," as required by
the U.S. Constitution, but for whatever the government deems to be a "public benefit."
(22) Governments may condemn and seize the private property of an individual, and
then give, or sell it, to another private owner who promises to use the property in a
way that satisfies the government's vision. Plans adopted at the local level can have
extremely detailed requirements. It is not unusual for these plans to specify the types
of vegetation that must be used for landscaping, the color of paint to be used - inside
and outside the structure, and even the types of appliances and fixtures that must be
used. Businesses can be required to use signs that conform in size and color to all the
other signs in the neighborhood. There is virtually no limit to the restrictions that
these plans may impose. These comprehensive plans are often complicated by an
assortment of sub-authorities, such as Historic Districts; Conservation Districts;
Economic Development Districts; Scenic Highways and Byways; Scenic Rivers and
Streams; and more. These quasi-government agencies are most often created by
ordinance, and populated with political appointees. They are frequently given
unwarranted authority to dictate the use of private property within their jurisdiction.

Individuals caught up in conflict with these agencies are often frustrated by the
indifference of elected officials, and financially drained by the legal costs required to
resist their dictates. In one form or another, sustainable development has reached
every corner of the United States. It has impacted millions of Americans, most of
whom have no idea that their particular problem is related to a global initiative
launched more than 15 years ago, by the United Nations. Many, if not most of the
bureaucrats at the local and state level, charged with implementing these policies,
have no knowledge of their origin. What's worse, few people have considered the
possible negative consequences of these policies.

Consequences of Sustainable Development What is perhaps the most serious
consequence of sustainable development is the least visible: the transformation of the
policy-making process. The idea that government is empowered by the consent of the
governed is the idea that set the United States apart from all previous forms of
government. It is the principle that unleashed individual creativity and free markets,
which launched the spectacular rise of the world's most successful nation. The idea,
and the process by which citizens can reject laws they don't want, simply by replacing
the officials who enacted them, makes the ballot box the source of power for every
citizen, and the point of accountability for every politician. When public policy is
made by elected officials who are accountable to the people who are governed, then
government is truly empowered by the consent of the governed. Sustainable
development has designed a process through which public policy is designed by
professionals and bureaucrats, and implemented administratively, with only symbolic,
if any, participation by elected officials. The professionals and bureaucrats who
actually make the policies are not accountable to the people who are governed by
them. This is the "new collaborative decisions process," called for by the PCSD. (23)
Because the policies are developed at the top, by professionals and bureaucrats, and
sent down the administrative chain of command to state and local governments,
elected officials have little option but to accept them. Acceptance is further ensured
when these policies are accompanied by "economic incentives and disincentives,"
along with lobbying and public relations campaigns coordinated by government-
funded non-government organizations. Higher housing costs are an immediate, visible
consequence of sustainable development. Land within the urban growth boundary
jumps in value because supply is limited, and continues to increase disproportionately
in value as growth continues to extinguish supply. These costs must be reflected in the
price of housing. Add to this price pressure, the regulatory requirements to use "green
seal" materials; that is, materials that are certified, either by government or a
designated non-government organization, to have been produced by methods deemed
to be "sustainable." Higher taxes are another immediate, visible, and inevitable
consequence of sustainable development. Higher land values automatically result in
higher tax bills. Sustainable development plans include another element that affects

property taxes. Invariably, these plans call for the acquisition of land for open space,
for parks, for greenways, for bike-and- hike trails, for historic preservation, and many
other purposes. Every piece of property taken out of the private sector by government
acquisition, forces the tax burden to be distributed over fewer taxpayers. The
inevitable result is a higher rate for each remaining taxpayer. Another consequence of
sustainable development is the gross distortion of justice. Bureaucrats who draw lines
on maps create instant wealth for some people, while prohibiting others from realizing
any gain on their investments. In communities across the country, people who live
outside the downtown area have lived with the expectation that one day, they could
fund their retirement by selling their land to new home owners as the nearby city
expanded. A line drawn on a map steals this expectation from people who live outside
the urban growth boundary. Proponents of sustainable development are forced to
argue that the greater good for the community is more important than negative
impacts on any individual. There is no equal justice, when government arbitrarily
takes value from one person and assigns it to another. Nowhere is this injustice more
visible than when eminent domain is used to implement sustainable development
plans. The Kelo vs. The City of New London case brought the issue to public
awareness, but in cities throughout the nation, millions of people are being displaced,
with no hope of finding affordable housing, in the new, "sustainable" community. In
Florida, this situation is particularly acute. Retirees have flocked to Florida and settled
in mobile home parks to enjoy their remaining days, living on fixed incomes, too old
or infirm to think about a new income producing career. Local governments across the
state are condemning these parks, and evicting the residents, in order to use the land
for development that fits the comprehensive plan, and which produces a higher tax
yield. These people are the victims of the "greater good," as envisioned by the
proponents of sustainable development. Less visible, but no less important, is the
erosion of individual freedom. Until the emergence of sustainable development, a
person's home was considered to be his castle. William Pitt expressed this idea quite
powerfully in Parliament in 1763, when he said:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown.
It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm
may enter, the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter - all his
force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." (24)

No more. Sustainable development allows king-government to intrude into a person's
home before it becomes his home, and dictate the manner and style to which the home
must conform. Sustainable development forces the owner of an existing home to
transform his home into a vision that is acceptable to king-government. Sustainable
development is extinguishing individual freedom for the "greater good," as
determined by king-government.

Conclusion The question that must be asked is: will sustainable development really
result in economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social equity for the
current generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs? (25) Even in the early days of this century-long transition to
sustainability, there is growing evidence that the fundamental flaws in the concept
will likely produce the opposite of the desired goals. Forests that have been taken out
of productive use in order to conform to the vision of sustainable development have
been burned to cinders, annihilating wildlife, including species deemed to be
"endangered," resulting in the opposite of "environmental protection." Government-
imposed restrictions on resource use in land that is now designated "wilderness," or
"buffer zones" have resulted in shortages, accompanied by rapid price increases that
result in the opposite of "economic prosperity." In sustainable communities, it is the
poorest of the poor who are cast out of their homes to make way for the planners'
visions; these victims would not define the experience as "social equity." Detailed
academic studies show that housing costs rise inevitably as sustainable development is
implemented. Traffic congestion is often worsened after sustainable development
measures are installed. (26) And always, private property rights and individual
freedom are diminished or extinguished. Sustainable development is a concept
constructed on the principle that government has the right and the responsibility to
regulate the affairs of people to achieve government's vision of the greatest good for
all. The United States is founded on the principle that government has no rights or
responsibility not specifically granted to it by the people who are governed. These two
concepts cannot long coexist. One principle, or the other, will eventually dominate.
For the last 15 years, sustainable development has been on the ascendancy,
permeating state and local governments across the land. Only in the last few years
have ordinary people begun to realize that sustainable development is a global
initiative, imposed by the highest levels of government. People are just beginning to
get a glimpse of the magnitude of the transformation of America that is underway.

The question that remains unanswered is: will Americans accept this new sustainable
future that has been planned for them and imposed upon them? Or, as Americans have
done in the past, will they rise up in defense of their freedom, and demand that their
elected officials force the bureaucrats and professionals to return to the role of serving
the people who pay their salaries, by administering policies enacted only by elected
officials, rather than conspiring to set the policies by which all the people must live.

Endnotes

1. Sierra Club ecoregions: http ://www . sierraclub.org/ecoregions/

2. Wilderness.net ( http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=fastFacts), a project
of the Wilderness Institute, the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, and the
Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. (October 27, 2005)

3. Campaign for America's Wilderness
( http://www.leaveitwild.org/psapp/view art.asp?PEB ART ID=397) (As of May 1, 2005)

4. See Eco-logic Powerhouse, November, 2005, and
http://eco.freedom.org/el/20020302/biosphere.shtml

5. Agenda Item 1(7), Report of the First Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical
and Technological Advice, Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Second Meeting, 6-17 November, Jakarta, Indonesia, (UNEP/CBD/COP2/5, September 21,
1995).

See also: http://www.freedom.org/prc/legis/hr901test.htm .

6. "How the Convention on Biological Diversity was Defeated," Sovereignty International, Inc,
1998 - http://sovereigntv.freedom.Org/p/land/biotreatystop.htm .

7. "Measures for conservation of biodiversity and Sustainable Use of its Components," Global
Biodiversity Assessment, Cambridge University Press for the United Nations Environment
Program, Section 13.4.2.2.3, p. 993.

8. Reed F. Noss, "The Wildlands Project," Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, pp.13- 15. (Wild
Earth is published by the Cenozoic Society, P.O. Box 492, Canton, NY 13617).

9. Report to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Working Group on Wildlife Linkage Habitat, Prepared
by Bill Ruediger, Endangered Species Program Leader, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region,
Missoula, MT, February 1, 2001. See also:

http : //www . eco . freedom . org/el/20020202/linkage . shtml .

10. See: http://clinton4.nara.gov/PCSD/

11. See: http://clinton4.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/suscomm/ind suscom.html

12. "Community Sustainability; Agendas for Choice-making and Action," U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, September 22, 1995. See also:
http://eco.freedom.org/reports/sdagenda.html

13. Ibid, pp 2 If.

14. See http://eco.freedom.org/col/?i=1997/9 And http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/suscom.htm
For a discussion of the consensus process, and sustainable communities.

15. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives web site, October 28, 2005

( http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=798)

16. Summary of the Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, 2002 Edition,
( http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/summary.htm)

17. State of Wisconsin, Department of Administration web site:
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/pagesubtext detail.asp?linksubcatid=366

18. FoxNews.com, July 10, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124358,00.html

19. See http://www.worldcarfree.net/links/traf.php.

20. See http://www.worldcarfree.net/links/traf.php for descriptions of these housing alternatives.

21. "Forfeiting the American Dream: The HUD-Funded Smart Growth Guidebook's Attack on
Homeownership," The Heritage Foundation
( http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/BG1565.cfm), July 2, 2002.

22. "Eminent domain; eminent disaster," Eco-logic Powerhouse, August, 2005
( http://www.eco.freedom.org/articles/maguire-805.shtml) , for a discussion on this issue.

23. President's Council on Sustainable Development, We Believe Statement #8
http://sovereignty.freedom.Org/p/sd/PCSD-webelieve.htm

24. William Pitt, the elder, Earl of Chatham, speech in the House of Lords.— Henry Peter
Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen Who Flourished in the Time of George III, vol. 1,
p. 52 (1839). ( http://www.bartleby.com/73/861.html)

25. Sustainable Development as defined by the U.N.'s Bruntland Commission report, Our
Common Future, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 43

26. This website, http://www.demographia.com/dbr-ix.htm provides an abundance of reports and
studies that challenge effectiveness of sustainable development.

Copyright (C) 2005 Freedom.org, All rights reserved

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to
use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.